The opinion
STORCKMAN, Judge
(concurring).
In concurring I wish to point out additional authority criticizing “lack of control” as a proper assignment of specific negligence in the operation of an automobile. May v. Bradford, Mo., 348 S.W.2d 133 , calls it an “abstract submission” and cites Rosenfeld v. Peters, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 264, 269 [7, 8], wherein it is said such a submission “at least was confusing and could be construed as a roving commission.” It has been termed a submission of general negligence which gives the widest kind of roving commission. Highfill v. Brown, Mo., 340 S.W.2d 656, 663 [9]; McCarthy v. Sebben, Mo., 331 S.W.2d 601, 606 . See also Kimmich v. Berry, Mo., 319 S.W.2d 546, 547-548 ; Vogelgesang v. Waelder, Mo. App., 238 S.W.2d 849, 856 [8]; and State ex rel. Burger v. Trimble, 331 Mo. 748 , 55 S.W.2d 422, 423 [2].
The Bar should be acquainted with the hazard which the continued use of this submission presents.